My sense of the room at the Interop was that clients already relied on the
ability to LOCK resources which don't previously exist, then do PUT.
The only functionality which is under question, IMHO, is:
- whether clients can do LOCK then MKCOL (or MKACTIVITY, etc)
- whether the null or empty resource goes away when unlocked
I'm happy with the current behaviour as specified by RFC2518 -- after all,
we implemented it that way. I'm not totally attached to the ability to turn
a lock-null resource into a collection, or make it disappear when unlocked.
lisa
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:12 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: WebDAV
> Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to conclude this issue, but I've not heard any anything
> to suggest
> that we have agreement. Discussion has been light.
>
> Stefan and Lisa, do you have a response to Geoff's response to your
> postings? Has anyone decided they agree with each another position?
> Would someone else like to speak up and take/defend a position?
>
> J.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com